jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have had some photos used without permission, but not like this:

http://www.uprootedphotographer.com/post/131974720064/hull-property-group-stole-my-photo

Cappy Loc: Wildwood, NJ

I would say the mall is wrong!! Doing things like this hurts those photographers that try to make a living selling their stock photos.

Also, I thought a few years ago there was a ruling that the person that took the photo owns it and it's automatically copyrighted. From what I read in the above I guess I'm wrong to think that.

By the way, It was a great shot which is why they chose it.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

This should serve as a warning, that anything posted on the internet is fair game.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The use is iffy as your lawyer said especially since a judge allowed some guy to use other folks work to create his own. His source? Internet pictures.

Today you need to specifically protect your work by registering with the adequate authorities but even that is not a 'full' protection. It also cost money.

That said, you do not need to go far to find copyright infringements. Look at some UHH user liberal use of graphics and images created by someone else w/o giving credits...

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

As was noted, for true "protection", you need to have it registered with the copyright office. Wonder though, if the photographer secured a property release of the scene as it's possible for him to get in trouble even if it's someone else who uses the image for commercial use.

ncshutterbug

Jim, I read your story with great interest, as this has been a bug with me since I started posting on this site as well as Facebook. I had incorrectly understood that photos on Facebook would not be usable. I felt there might be ways around it but never realized any large company would take such underhanded steps to get what they want! And then to treat you so poorly to boot! Perhaps we should all refuse to set foot into any of their malls in protest. They are all over and I'm sure most here have at least one in their areas. Now I am more paranoid than ever about it. May I post your story on my Facebook page?

Wrangler Loc: North Texas

Perhaps we should just take a police man with us as we go into the mall and remove a drinking fountain. We would end up in the slammer!

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I didn't intend for anyone to think this happened to me. I wasn't clear enough. I saw this on a professional photography forum I am a member of. This happened to another photographer.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Each site has its own policy over the use of what is posted. This is why you need to really read the a TOU.

On this site by example if you post any image it will stay published on UHH regardless of time elapsed (The site seems to forget some pictures thought, not sure why, noticed this in one of my old thread). UHH has no clear TOU that I noticed other than at the 'head of a forum'. It does not address copyrighted use of what is being posted.

Some sites claim outright ownership of your images!!! Not sure what FB does, I do not post anything there.

My suggestion? Post only a link to your captures* so that if you do not wish your stuff to stay you can just remove it and break the link in the process. Something I do almost all the time.

-----
* You need your own server or private storage that you can modify. This method is relatively involved as you need one thumbnail to offer the initial sample and the original. This by the way allows you to post anything as well as break the MB limitations except with the thumbnail that must meet the forum size (px) requirement.

Using flicker or the like does not work as well simply because you just expose your image to other folks multiplying the risks.

JCam Loc: MD Eastern Shore

CAPPY, You are correct about the ownership!

I am not a lawyer, but we have had several patent & copyright attorneys address this particular situation at our club. Per my understanding of the copyright law, the picture belongs to whomever tripped the shutter, even if you take a picture for someone who hands you his/her camera and asks you to take a picture for him/her/them. The picture does not have to be registered or marked, but that action does make legal action and recovery easier, and even if not registered, you have 90 days after first unauthorized commercial use to register it. I don't know if that 90 days is after the copyright holder finds out about the use, or it is after the actual use.

I looked into protecting a couple of pictures I took recently, and decided that for a non-professional photographer the cost of applying for a copyright for singular photo was not economically feasible; the rates went up last year to about $85.00 per application; it had been $35. However, as an individual you can register a full CVD full for something around $130.00.

In this case I'd ignore Hull's offer and suggest the photographer throw out a number about $500 to the mall owners. If they decline, I might just call a local paper's reporter and give him or her the story. If they decline to run it because they get ads from Hull, I might consider taking out an photo ad and telling the story. It would be the truth so there is no defamation. On the other hand, a lesser but reasonable fee, not $20.00, and his name on the photo in the mall might be worth more.

jcboy3

I think it would be better to negotiate replacing the stolen version with a high resolution version with attribution and fee. Both options were offered. Taking that approach might have led to a fruitful relationship, more sales in the future, and perhaps educating the mall management as well.

sarge69 Loc: Ft Myers, FL

Never post one of your photos on the internet in full resolution. Any photos I put on the web are reduced to 1280x960 and then compressed by a minimum of 30 percent.

They look good on the internet but you would not want to download and print the image at a larger size.

Just a thought

Sarge69

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Since the photographer took pictures of Hul Group property ( the mall ) and then sold those images without permission then why didn"t the mall sue the photographer.
Sounds as though he got off easy.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Did not think of it that way but... Despite the potential sarcasm here you have a valid point.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

From the TOU here:

Visitor agrees as a condition of viewing, that any communication between Visitor and Website is deemed a submission. By making a submission, Visitor grants the administration and the owners of the Website a worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, sub-licenseable and transferable license to use in any way, reproduce and distribute the submission and prepare derivative works of the submission without further permission. This includes commercial and non-commercial use of all submissions, including portions thereof, graphics contained thereon, or any of the content of the submission. Visitor agrees to only communicate that information to the Website, which it wishes to forever allow the Website to use in any manner as it sees fit. "Submissions" is also a provision of the Privacy Policy.

Mike